October 22, 2009

Would You Vote For Newt In 2012? Why?

Newt Gingrich, erstwhile Republican Congressional leader, and modern day GOP apparatchik has been roundly criticized of late in the blogosphere (here's a prime example) for his support of Dierdre Scozzafava, candidate for Congress in New York's 23rd Congressional District, in the special election in 2009. And rightly so. Scozzafava is no different than a liberal Democrat on far too many issues to justify pushing her nomination in a primary race. Scozzafava has accepted endorsements in the past from the Working Families Party (which has ties to ACORN), and she was endorsed, unsolicited by liberal activist Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (the Daily Kos guy). That's a nice ship for Newt to board.

Especially when there are solid conservative candidates in the running (Doug Hoffman for one). A Democrat has not represented the district in any form since 1871. Most recently outgoing Republican McHugh won the district with over 60 percent of the vote. It seems pretty solidly conservative to most observers. In the most recent election however, President Obama carried the district over McCain by a margin of 52%-47%. Could Newt be playing defence in New York? Does he really think there has been a shift in the country towards more liberal policy?

There was a time when Newt was a solid conservative, but on far too many issues and in far too many circumstances, he's started to behave like the inside-the-beltway-bubble thinkers he once was able to gain Republican control of the Congress (for the first time in decades) by decrying. What happened to Newt? Has been inside politics for too long? This is not another Newt pile-on post however. Yes, he deserves his criticism by sticking to his guns on this issue and caving on others like the global warming HOAX.

But here's the real question.

The GOP was overrun in 2006-2008. In a military battle an overrun army/brigade/platoon that has been scattered is of no real military consequence. In order to be an effective unit, the scattered forces must regroup (rally) in order to become an effective fighting force. In political terms, a house divided cannot stand, and a rally-equivalent is not just necessary, but imperative. Conservatives cannot hope to split their allegiances and be an effective counter-force to liberal dogma. In that sense Newt makes an important point.

Too often those who espouse a third party, and there are plenty, do so without considering the unintended consequences of their actions. And the unintended consequences of a divided force opposing rampant liberlism, are dire. It means, as Newt rightly points out, a permanent (representative) minority status. That's far more damaging than some RINOs in the party. It's like taking your foot off the brake entirely rather than not pushing it hard enough to stop in time. At least some braking in the latter case is happening and it buys time.

On the other hand, a GOP party infiltrated by liberals means two liberal parties and no conservative viewpoint. So what's a conservative to do? Rather than walk away from the party like a scorned spouse seeking a divorce, more needs to be done within the confines of the party itself. Aren't conservatives supposed to be known for their loyalty to their ideals? Isn't loyalty to the GOP like loyalty to a friend. If your friend does something really stupid, you don't walk away from the friendship, you try to set them straight. Aren't conservatives all about hard work being required for results (you get out of it what you put into it)? Doesn't it sound a bit like sour grapes and a bit like being the selfish, easy-route solution that we think liberals live to just walk away from it all? To me, that's the way it appears. Instead of running, conservatives should be fighting to right the GOP.

In the case of Scozzafava, there should be a rally around Hoffman in order to defeat Scozzafava and her liberal endorsements (and Newt Gingrich's). It shouldn't be too hard, as apparently her cash stockpile is not too impressive.

Where efforts should be made is in the primaries and at every turn that touches on GOP involvement. If you put effort into the GOP, over time you will see results. The effort that went into the Tea Parties and the resulting notice (despite many trying to suppress it) in the media and in Congress was worth it. But that type of effort was just a start. Or it should be. What conservatives face is a political enemy that WILL NOT rest and will not relent. That type of effort must be met in kind. Anything short and you get what you pay (in sweat) for.

Amount of effort in = Amount of result out result out.

In order to make the big gains, the right has to settle for small gains to start. Defeating Scozzafava is a good start, but the real step is to send a big notice to Democrats in Congress and the White House that they have over-estimated their mandate, because many who signed on were, clueless, and many who were opposed are now more stridently so. Seeing a big Congressional swing is the slap-in-the-face Democrats need to back a few steps away from the radicalism they are currently pushing.

Until Rupert Murdoch or some other conservative takes ownership of NBC, and we have not just Fox versus every other television network, the playing field will always be tilted in favor of liberals. It means we have to work harder, and accept small gains as gains rather than take an all-or-nothing view.

Would you vote for Newt in 2012 if he were the GOP nominee for President? I'd like to think that despite reservations, most sensible conservatives would begrudgingly do so. As much as John McCain was a really lousy GOP choice, he would not have been Obama-bad. Newt, as centrist as he has become, would not be McCain-bad. Hopefully conservatives realize that, should Newt become the nominee. The trick is, given Newt Gingrich's slide to some untenable positions from a conservative standpoint, to not let him get that 2012 nomination in the first place. That's the real fight. At least that's my two cents.